MANOJ KUMAR JAYASWAL vs IDBI BANK on 28 July 2026

**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA** **HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA** **CHAIRPERSON**

**Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 695 of 2026** (Arising out of O.A. No. 124 of 2016 in DRT-I, Kolkata)

Order No. 05 28.07.2026

Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Anr. .....Appellants

-Vs-

IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr. - .....Respondents

Mr. Souritra Ganguly, Mr. Aniruddha Sinha, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee, Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Mr. Tirthankar Das, Learned Counsel for the Appellants

Mr. Radraman Bhattacharya, Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Akash Munshi, Mr. Suryaneel Das, Learned Counsel for the Respondents.

**THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :**

**I.A. No. 447 of 2026**

Application for waiver from making pre-deposit as required under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RDB Act'). Opposition filed by the Respondents.

2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Instant Appeal is preferred by the Appellants against an order dated 09.06.2026 passed by Learned DRT-1 Kolkata in O.A. No. 124 of 2016 (***IDBI Bank versus Path Breaking Project Ltd. and Ors***) wherein I.A. No. 2985 of 2025 was 

dismissed. I.A. No. 2985 of 2025 was filed by the defendant No. 2/ Appellant herein challenging the valuation of the aircraft which was dismissed by the impugned order.

4. I.A. No. 447 of 2026 is filed for waiver from making pre-deposit under Section 21 of the 'RDB Act' on the ground that the debt has yet not been determined which is mandatory condition precedent for invoking Section 21 of the 'RDB Act'. Hence, no pre-deposit is required to be made.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the debt has yet not been determined by the Learned DRT. O.A. filed under Section 19 of the 'RDB Act' is still pending. It is further submitted that the Appellants are not challenging the sale. Rather, they are challenging the valuation as made by the secured creditor. Learned Counsel for the Appellants placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in C.O. No. 4051 of 2012 dated 12.03.2013 reported in ***Sutapa Chatterjee and another versus UCO Bank and others 2013 SCC OnLine Cal 4423***. Reliance is also placed upon judgment of a Division Bench of Hon'ble ***Telangana High Court 2025 SCC OnLine TS 687*** in Writ Petition No. 12395 of 2025 (***Gade Sreenivas Reddy versus The State Bank of India & Others***) decided on 28^th August, 2025.

6. Per contra, Learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent vehemently opposed the prayer for waiver. Learned Senior Advocate made a submission that the Appellants have not filed the Appeal with clean hands, rather they suppressed the orders of the Learned DRT passed earlier. It is further submitted that the principal borrower is in liquidation and official liquidator is appointed who has conceded for the sale of the secured asset i.e. aircraft. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that the aircraft is the only secured asset to recover the dues of the Bank. Appellants are trying to linger on the proceedings. Learned Senior Advocate has drawn my attention towards the order dated 03.09.2018 passed by DRAT Kolkata in Appeal No. 167 of 2018 /1309 in claim petition O.A. No. 124 of 2016 in DRT-1, Kolkata. Attention is also drawn towards the order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in C.O. No. 3159 of 2018 dated 14^th September, 2018 wherein the Revisional Application against the order dated 3^rd September 2018 was withdrawn by the Appellants and Hon'ble High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand). Learned Senior Advocate has further drawn my attention towards the order dated 19.06.2015 passed in C.A. No. 364 of 2015 with C.P. 949 of 2014 in the High Court at Calcutta Original Side in the matter of ***M/s Abhijeet Projects Limited and in the matter of Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited*** wherein the C.A. 364 of 2015 was disposed of by leaving the Bank free to take such steps, in accordance with law, as available to it, notwithstanding the order dated 31^st March, 2015. Learned Senior Advocate has further drawn my attention towards an order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the Learned DRT-1 Kolkata in O.A. No. 124 of 2016 wherein the Learned DRT has made certain observations which order was not challenged. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that this order dated

19.06.2018 is concealed by the Appellants in their Appeal. It is further submitted that a Receiver was appointed by the Learned DRT on 19.12.2025. Receiver, Mr. Basudev Mukherjee, Advocate submitted his report on 19.01.2026 recording that despite notice, no one was present on behalf of the Singapore based Company (proposed buyer) nor any representative on behalf of Defendant No. 2 i.e. the Appellant herein. One Shri Nitil Khodke, one of the representatives of the Valuer Kakode Associates was present on 15.01.2026 for valuation of the aircraft who took inspection including the Engine for valuation. The Valuation Report dated 19.01.2026 was sent to the Receiver through email which is annexed with the Receiver Report. Learned Counsel would further submit that Appellant herein has no locus standi to challenge the valuation as he is not the principal borrower who is under liquidation. Debt as on date is approximately Rs. 690 crores which is to be considered for pre-deposit under Section 21 of the 'RDB Act'.

7. Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon ***Fine Platinum (India) Limited versus Indusland Bank Ltd. and others (2016) SCC OnLine Bom 7005 and Spentex Industries Limited versus State Bank of India and another AIR 2018 Delhi 160.*** Learned Counsel would submit that the debt has already been quantified by the Learned DRT in its various orders including the order dated 19.06.2018 and the Appellants are required to make the pre-deposit as per law.

8. Instant Appeal is preferred against an interim order passed by the Learned DRT-1 Kolkata dismissing the I.A.

challenging the Valuation Report. An Application for waiver from making pre-deposit is also filed. Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act reads as under:

**"21. Deposit of amount of debt due, on filing appeal. -** *Where an appeal is preferred by any person from whom the amount of debt is due to a bank or a financial institution or a consortium of banks or financial institutions, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal unless such person has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal [fifty per cent.] of the amount of debt so due from him as determined by the Tribunal under section 19:*

*Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to be deposited by such amount which shall not be less than twenty-five per cent. of the amount of such debt so due) to be deposited under this section.*

9. Before entering into the matter regarding waiver, we have to consider the legal proposition on the issue as to whether in a case wherein an Appeal is preferred against an order in a pending O.A. under Section 19 of the 'RDB Act' whether pre-deposit, as required under Section 21 of the 'RDB Act', is to be made mandatorily or not?

10. In ***Sutapa Chatterjee and another versus UCO Bank and others*** (supra), the issue was "whether the requirement of a pre-deposit to prefer an Appeal as recognized in Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act has to be made in case of every Appeal under Section 20 of the 'RDB Act' from every order passed by any Debt Recovery Tribunal? If the Appellant were a person against whom a money claim is made by a Bank or Financial Institution or Consortium of Bank or Financial Institutions under the Act." It was held that the key words of Section 21 of the Act are " debt is due". A debt, even within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the said Act, may be said to be 'due' only if it is adjudged to be due. The expression 'debt is due' in Section 21 of the 'RDB Act' necessarily implies the quantum of money found is to be due upon adjudication of claim by a Debt Recovery Tribunal. The adjudication of a claim, ordinarily, happens only upon the conclusion of the proceedings launched under Section 19 of the 'Act'. The factum of determination of debt depends upon the adjudication of the debt due against the person from whom an amount of debt is due. In the said case Appeal was preferred against the order of the DRT disallowing the plea for cross examination of the Bank witness. Since the no amount of debt was adjudged to be due from the petitioners, the condition for making a pre-deposit could not be imposed upon him.

11. In ***Gade Sreenivas Reddy versus The State Bank of India & Others*** (supra), Hon'ble Telangana High Court considered the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Allahabad High Court and the Calcutta High Court in ***State Bank of India versus Doon Valley Rice Mills Ltd. 2023 DHC 9308-DB, Jai Gopal Kansaland another versus Indian Bank and another 2019 SCC OnLine All 4669, Sutapa Chatterjee versus UCO Bank 2013 (2) Cal L.T. 272*** and held that there is a distinction between an Appeal arising out of determination of debt and a Misc. Appeal where the later would not come within the condition of Section 21 of the 'RDB Act'.

12. Learned Senior Advocate for the Respondents have placed reliance upon ***Spentex Industries Ltd. versus State Bank of India & Another*** (supra). In the facts of that case an Application filed by the petitioners i.e ***Spentex Industries Ltd. versus State Bank of India & Another*** (supra) was dismissed by the DRT holding that the O.A. was maintainable in view of the clauses of the agreements. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the Misc. Appeal before the DRAT impugning order of the DRT wherein the DRAT while issuing notice on the petitioners' Appeal vide order dated 23^rd March, 2018, directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the total loan amount of \$ 24,74,41,773 claimed by the Respondent No. 1 within two weeks and granted a stay of the pending proceedings before the DRT subject to the petitioner complying with the aforesaid condition. Hon'ble High Court held that the DRAT balanced the equities by directing the petitioner to deposit only 25% of the claimed amount and that too only as a condition for grant of a stay of further proceedings before the DRT. Accordingly, it was a case wherein the issue of applicability of Section 21 of the 'RDB Act' was not at all before the Hon'ble High Court. Rather, in Para No. 29 of the report it was held that " In order to consider even Section 21 of the 'RDB Act' was not at all applicable to the issue at end. The present case related to an Application moved by the petitioner at the very threshold of the proceedings and then there could be no question of any adjudication of the amount at this stage by the DRT."

13. Learned Senior Advocate has also placed reliance upon judgment of ***Fine Platinum (India) Ltd. and Another versus Indusland Bank Ltd and others*** (supra). In that case, the DRT passed an order under Rule 12(5) of the Rules

1993 which was an interim determination of the amount due wherein it was held that the borrowers/ guarantors would be liable to pay an amount towards pre-deposit under the provisions of Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. It was categorically held that –

**"31.** *The key words of section 21 of the RDDBI Act are "debt is due". "Debt". is defined under section 2(g) of the RDDBI Act. Section 2 (g) reads as under:*

*2. Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -...*

*(g) 'debt' means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person by a bank or a financial Institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or assigned, or whether payable under a decree or order of any civil court or any arbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on, the date of the application."*

*The debt has to be adjudged to be due. The process of adjudicating is required to be gone into, may be to limited extent or on an interim application, to find out the quantum of money to be due. Ordinarily, the final adjudication would take place upon conclusion of proceeding filed under section 19 of the RDDBI Act. But, there could be interim adjudication of part of the claim, while the remaining adjudication of the balance of the claim is determined in a final judgment or order. Under the scheme of the relevant provisions, as quoted above, it is clear that section 21 of the Act applies to an order which could be an interim order adjudicating part of the claim, while leaving the balance of the claim to be adjudicated. In other words, the determination under section 19, as contemplated under section 21, could be interim or final. Any contrary view, in our consideration, would go contrary to the very scheme of the Act. It would not be permissible to read provisions of rule 12(5) in a way to defeat the object of sections 19 and 21 of the RDDBI Act. The rules would not override the statutory provisions. It is elementary that the rules prescribed by a subordinate legislation cannot be in excess or in derogation of the statute under which it is made. Rule 12(5) is framed in exercise of powers under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 36 of the RDDBI Act by the Central Government, which confers powers on Central Government to make rules to carry out the provisions of the said Act."*

38. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under rule 12(5) of the Rules of 1993 amounts to an interim determination of the amount due. In the facts, the petitioners- borrowers/guarantors would be liable to pay an amount towards pre- deposit under the provisions of section 21 of the RDDBI Act.

14. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, case of **Fine Platinum (India) Ltd. and Another versus Indusland Bank Ltd and others** (supra) would also not be applicable to the facts of the present case.

15. Now we have to see as to whether the Appellants are required to make any pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDB Act, 1993? Impugned order is passed by the Learned DRT dismissing the I.A. No. 2985 of 2025 which was filed with a prayer for holding that the Valuation Report dated 04.06.2025 by Kakode Associates Consulting Private Limited is inconclusive with a further prayer to quash the sale.

16. Learned DRT dismissed the I.A. with a direction to Receiver to sell the aircraft by public auction. At the very outset, Learned Counsel for the Appellants fairly submits that the Appellants are not challenging the sale of the aircraft. Now the only question remains to the challenge of the Valuation Report which was dismissed by the DRT. Order impugned is simply an interlocutory order passed in pending O.A. proceedings.

17. Learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the Appellants have not come with clean hands in the Appeal. They have concealed the orders earlier order passed by the DRT as well as the Appellate Tribunal in conditional order dated 3^rd September, 2018 directing the

Appellant to deposit Rs. 25 crores was also not complied. Even the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta has imposed cost upon the Appellants in the Revision Petition. All these issues touch the merits of the matter which can only be considered at the time of hearing of the Appeal. But as far as the issue of pre-deposit is concerned, these issues are not directly or even impliedly concerns the issue of pre-deposit. Hence, all these issues would be dealt with appropriately at the appropriate stage of the hearing of Appeal.

**18.** On the basis of the discussions made above, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is interlocutory in nature passed in a pending O.A. under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 wherein debt has yet to be determined. Accordingly, Appellants are not required to make any pre-deposit to maintain the Appeal. Consequently, I.A. No. I.A. No. 447 of 2026 is disposed of.

**19.** Admit the Appeal by providing a regular Appeal number. Respondents may file the opposition if any, within one week with copy to the Appellant who may file rejoinder within one week thereafter.

List on 14^th August, 2026 for hearing of Appeal.

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

20.7.26

Dated 28^th August, 2026 /tp